Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Trump drops debate and possible Indy run. What happened to Newt's Presser?
Fox News announcement | 12/13/2011 | self

Posted on 12/13/2011 11:36:36 AM PST by sodpoodle

Fox announced that Trump has cancelled the 12/27/2011 debate. He is also reported as promising to run as an Independent if the GOP candidate is not to his liking.

What happened to Newt's noon announcement? Nothing being reported.


TOPICS: Chit/Chat
KEYWORDS: wassup
Sorry for the vanity - checked threads and found nothing.
1 posted on 12/13/2011 11:36:38 AM PST by sodpoodle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: sodpoodle

Oh who cares about the debate anyway. What Newt really needed to do was promise not to cheat on his wife, if he was elected. He did that, and I’m so proud of him. Isn’t everyone?

Oh wait, weren’t his wedding vows a promise too?

Oh well, let’s not dwell on that...


2 posted on 12/13/2011 11:40:57 AM PST by DoughtyOne (Why back in '88, Conservatives backed Gore in Texas. What Reagan revolution? What laegacy?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sodpoodle

and just where’s Waldo? Has the case gone cold or was he found?


3 posted on 12/13/2011 11:45:13 AM PST by Leep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sodpoodle
He is also reported as promising to run as an Independent if the GOP candidate is not to his liking.

That part isn't news, he's been saying that for a while.

4 posted on 12/13/2011 11:45:51 AM PST by RockinRight (If you're waiting to drink until you find pure water, you're going to die of dehydration.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sodpoodle

If Trump runs as an independent, then he will be willfully putting Obama in for a second term...he’ll be the 2012 Ross Perot.

All of his hoopla and talk at that point will be meaningless as his true colors and intentions will be revealed.


5 posted on 12/13/2011 11:46:34 AM PST by Jeff Head (Liberty is not free. Never has been, never will be. (www.dragonsfuryseries.com))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sodpoodle
Here's the lame story of the Newt presser...
Nathan Deal cheerleads for Gingrich

6 posted on 12/13/2011 11:47:16 AM PST by RoosterRedux (George Washington: ' Victory or Death')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RockinRight

Ok, fine, which candidates are not to his liking? Will we just have to select one, then read his press release to find out what’s in it?


7 posted on 12/13/2011 11:48:08 AM PST by ngat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: sodpoodle
Trump drops debate and possible Indy run.

Fox announced that Trump has cancelled the 12/27/2011 debate. He is also reported as promising to run as an Independent if the GOP candidate is not to his liking.

This is confusing. In the headline, you say that Trump is dropping a possible independent run. Below, you say that he is promising to run as an independent if, etc. Which is it?

8 posted on 12/13/2011 11:48:19 AM PST by Charles Henrickson (Huh?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

Looks like Newt is mainstream.

http://www.divorcestatistics.org/

Divorce statistics in America for marriage

Marriage Divorce statistics (in percent)

First Marriage 45% to 50% marriages end in divorce
Second Marriage 60% to 67% marriages end in divorce
Third Marriage 70% to 73% marriages end in divorce


9 posted on 12/13/2011 11:48:28 AM PST by sodpoodle ( Gingrich - flying solo - without congressional baggage!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head

I think his comments were just a slam back at the candidates that dissed him. Newt played nice, so if Newt gets the nod, Trump will stay out.


10 posted on 12/13/2011 11:48:44 AM PST by RainMan (Newt - Look at his actual record while in office. Gingrich/Palin 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head
If Trump runs as an independent, then he will be willfully putting Obama in for a second term...he’ll be the 2012 Ross Perot.

All of his hoopla and talk at that point will be meaningless as his true colors and intentions will be revealed.

You are correct. I knew Trumps ego was huge, surprised that he would put us in a position for an obama win.

11 posted on 12/13/2011 11:51:10 AM PST by Irish Eyes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Charles Henrickson

Ooooooooooops.

I’ll try and get it corrected. Thx for the head’s up.

He is dropping the debate. He might run as Independent.


12 posted on 12/13/2011 11:51:45 AM PST by sodpoodle ( Gingrich - flying solo - without congressional baggage!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: sodpoodle

First of all, it depends on whose figures you use, how many first marriages wind up in divorce.

Second of all, we’re not really just addressing divorce are we.

Third of all, why would a guy make a promise in public not to cheat on his wife, when he’s already failed on that account twice before?

What good is a new promise? He’s already shown what his promise is worth, twice.


13 posted on 12/13/2011 11:55:44 AM PST by DoughtyOne (Why back in '88, Conservatives backed Gore in Texas. What Reagan revolution? What laegacy?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: sodpoodle

So much the free Santorum exposure.


14 posted on 12/13/2011 11:55:56 AM PST by newzjunkey (Republicans will find a way to reelect Obama and Speaker Pelosi.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sodpoodle

On F&F this morning he announced that the debate would go on but that he would change the setting to be more like a conversation among friends.


15 posted on 12/13/2011 11:58:33 AM PST by stilloftyhenight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head

He knows he can’t get the Republican nod, and thinks an end run may be the way to go. This reveals him to be non-presidential. And end run will wind up failing, as certainly as the sun will come up tomorrow.

Geez Trump, why not wear a pink tutu to the next press conference. It couldn’t be any more self-destructive.


16 posted on 12/13/2011 11:59:11 AM PST by DoughtyOne (Why back in '88, Conservatives backed Gore in Texas. What Reagan revolution? What laegacy?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ngat

Probably.

I liked a lot of what Trump had to say earlier this year, but at this point, he’s just a douche and a nuisance.


17 posted on 12/13/2011 11:59:32 AM PST by RockinRight (If you're waiting to drink until you find pure water, you're going to die of dehydration.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: RoosterRedux

Thanks for the link - here’s the story.

Gov. Nathan Deal urged Georgians Tuesday to back Newt Gingrich’s bid for president, holding a press conference Tuesday at the Capitol to tout dozens of new endorsements for the former House Speaker by officials statewide.

State Senate President Pro Tem Tommie Williams, R-Lyons, were among those endorsing the former House Speaker, as well as eight other senators, 25 house members and a slew of local city councilmen and school board members.

Gingrich’s campaign said they had received more than 60 endorsements from Georgia officials in all, including those they had previously announced including five members of the Georgia Republican Congressional delegation.

Deal is chairman of Gingrich Republican campaign in Georgia. He made note Tuesday that the two served together in the U.S. House, and that he made his choice to back Gingrich in 2012 because he knew him personally “and knew what kind of candidate he could be.”

“He is a man of ideas,” Deal said. “But he is also a man willing to listen to your ideas.”


18 posted on 12/13/2011 12:03:49 PM PST by sodpoodle ( Gingrich - flying solo - without congressional baggage!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: newzjunkey

“So much the free Santorum exposure”

I agree. The debate would have helped Rick. He needs all the exposure he can get.


19 posted on 12/13/2011 12:05:51 PM PST by Parley Baer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: sodpoodle
He is also reported as promising to run as an Independent if the GOP candidate is not to his liking.

...and proceed to hand the election to Obama on a silver platter. Not that it wasn't planned that way in the first place. I'm entertained by the fealty some FReepers show to Trump, when time and again he proves what an arrogant, bloviating a**hole he is. Anyone NOW see his bullying nature coming to the fore????

20 posted on 12/13/2011 12:12:04 PM PST by ScottinVA (I miss America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
What Newt really needed to do was promise not to cheat on his wife, if he was elected. He did that, and I’m so proud of him. Isn’t everyone? Oh wait, weren’t his wedding vows a promise too? Oh well, let’s not dwell on that...

King David not only committed adultery, but even arranged the murder of his lover's lawful husband. What ultimately mattered was that David repented when he was confronted by Nathan, and God allowed David to continue his successful reign.

Newt Gingrich has acknowledged his past adulteries and says that he has sought forgiveness from God. Whether one chooses to believe him or not, I would be careful not to speak for God concerning a matter that He might already have put to rest. The same would have been true of Bill Clinton if he had acknowledged and repented, but he sadly did not.

On a more practical level, the Democrats might not even need to lift a finger next fall if Republicans continue to destroy each other before the real battle begins. The GOP is the party of winning ideas, but too many Republicans would rather destroy their allies than to defeat their real opponents.

21 posted on 12/13/2011 12:13:58 PM PST by Always A Marine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head
All of his hoopla and talk at that point will be meaningless as his true colors and intentions will be revealed.

Yep. All those pilgrimages up Trump Mountain by GOPers to see the holy grail of His Supreme Donaldness' endorsement... all in vain.

22 posted on 12/13/2011 12:14:16 PM PST by ScottinVA (I miss America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head
All of his hoopla and talk at that point will be meaningless as his true colors and intentions will be revealed.

Yep. All those pilgrimages up Trump Mountain by GOPers to seek the holy grail of His Supreme Donaldness' endorsement... all in vain.

23 posted on 12/13/2011 12:14:26 PM PST by ScottinVA (I miss America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head
If Trump runs as an independent, then he will be willfully putting Obama in for a second term...he’ll be the 2012 Ross Perot.

I don't think so. Perot was a serious candidate, was in debates, spent loads of money, had thousands of volunteers went to his own convention, and people really believed in him and wanted him to win.

Other than a couple of blackjack dealers, bartenders and caddies, and a few nitwits that think trump is serious who is going to vote for this media whore?

He'll probably get some people that watch his TV show, who ever that is , but I don't think that this egomaniac wants to spend his own money, especially when he sees how little traction he gets.

What kind of asshat would send their own hard earned money to trump's campaign?

If anybody does, they are too stupid to be allowed to vote.

The msm, those fags that hate trump's guts, will be the first to pimp his run, but only when they are using free TV time, and they won't be donating to trumpster the dumpster.

24 posted on 12/13/2011 12:15:27 PM PST by USS Alaska (Nuke The Terrorist Savages)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Always A Marine
but too many Republicans would rather destroy their allies than to defeat their real opponents.

Much of it, IMO, is based on the too many Republicans' innate desire to remain in the impotent, yet comfortably secure position of the minority. After all, too much in the way of responsibility is demanded of them if they actually have to ... ugh.... LEAD.

25 posted on 12/13/2011 12:17:06 PM PST by ScottinVA (I miss America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
Yeah but newt really really really means it this time... kind of like a Triple Dog Dare don't cha know?

LLS

26 posted on 12/13/2011 12:18:33 PM PST by LibLieSlayer ("Americans are hungry to feel once again a sense of mission and greatness." Ronaldo Magnus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ScottinVA
You are dead on Scott... stand your ground. The republican party leadership hates all of us... some here would rather embrace that hate than stand up against it. I am not talking third party... but if they keep crapping on us... the TEA Party will not hold itself back.

LLS

27 posted on 12/13/2011 12:23:28 PM PST by LibLieSlayer ("Americans are hungry to feel once again a sense of mission and greatness." Ronaldo Magnus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Always A Marine

So another-words, we as free agents of God, should not worry about trying to live decent lives. Okay then, thanks a lot. I can do whatever I please. Wahoo...

Good to know.

I know you mean well, but I didn’t buy the Clinton defense then, and I don’t buy it now. Please don’t make it in front of my kids.


28 posted on 12/13/2011 12:26:59 PM PST by DoughtyOne (Why back in '88, Conservatives backed Gore in Texas. What Reagan revolution? What laegacy?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: LibLieSlayer

You know, I had not thought about it that way. Thank you.

;^)


29 posted on 12/13/2011 12:28:07 PM PST by DoughtyOne (Why back in '88, Conservatives backed Gore in Texas. What Reagan revolution? What laegacy?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: ScottinVA
Much of it, IMO, is based on the too many Republicans' innate desire to remain in the impotent, yet comfortably secure position of the minority. After all, too much in the way of responsibility is demanded of them if they actually have to ... ugh.... LEAD.

I am old enough to remember this tendency as the "Bob Michel Syndrome" -- a remnant of the time when Republicans knew their place and were rewarded for going along with the charade.
(For those too young to know, Bob Michel was the pre-Newtonian GOP House Minority Leader who cheerfully groveled for table scraps from his "good friends" and "colleagues" across the aisle.)

30 posted on 12/13/2011 12:33:15 PM PST by Always A Marine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
So another-words, we as free agents of God, should not worry about trying to live decent lives. Okay then, thanks a lot. I can do whatever I please. Wahoo... Good to know.

Absolutely not! Or as Paul said in Romans 6: "God forbid!" There are consequences to all sin, but the whole meaning of the gospel is that God has provided a way for us to be forgiven for our sins. All of them.

I know you mean well, but I didn’t buy the Clinton defense then, and I don’t buy it now. Please don’t make it in front of my kids.

You clearly misread my statement about Bill Clinton. What makes Clinton different from Gingrich is that Clinton never acknowledged his actions or repented for them. If he had swallowed his pride and publicly repented for what he did, I believe that would have put his past to rest. It was Clinton's failure to do so that still besmirches his character.

31 posted on 12/13/2011 12:51:03 PM PST by Always A Marine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Always A Marine
So another-words, we as free agents of God, should not worry about trying to live decent lives. Okay then, thanks a lot. I can do whatever I please. Wahoo... Good to know.

Absolutely not! Or as Paul said in Romans 6: "God forbid!" There are consequences to all sin, but the whole meaning of the gospel is that God has provided a way for us to be forgiven for our sins. All of them.

I am not opposed to the idea that men should be forgiven their sins.  God will provide the forgiveness.  He will expunge the record, and grant the sinner salvation.  I on the other hand can forgive a man his sins, but still understand that the wages of sin don't end simply because a man has repented.  If this were what was expected of us as Christians, then there would be no need for prisons.  You sin, you pay the penalty.

If you wish to be seen as a person people can trust, then you live a trustworthy life.  You can't become a two time loser on infidelity, then ask people to treat you as a person who has fidelity.  Forgiveness is one thing, and prudence is another.

Look, if this didn't apply to having fidelity as it applies to Conservative principles, I wouldn't be addressing this as I am.  Newt has not shown fidelity to Conservative principles.  While I may understand that he is sorry for what he has done in the past, I must use some judgement when it comes to putting him into a position of trust again.  I don't have a basis for doing so.  There are plenty of other roles for Newt to play, where he could do something positive for society.  I just don't see the Oval Office as the place to test my and other Conservatives trust of him.

I know you mean well, but I didn’t buy the Clinton defense then, and I don’t buy it now. Please don’t make it in front of my kids.

You clearly misread my statement about Bill Clinton. What makes Clinton different from Gingrich is that Clinton never acknowledged his actions or repented for them. If he had swallowed his pride and publicly repented for what he did, I believe that would have put his past to rest. It was Clinton's failure to do so that still besmirches his character.

And it is Newt's proclivity to abandon Conservatism every time the mood strikes him, and do whatever he feels like at the moment, no matter what that telegraphs to Conservatives.  While he does express some level of repentence, he also continues to make statements that leave little doubt that he still doesn't grasp what it is he did, that he needed to appologize for.

His comments on tying global warming to a business economic solution, is still VERY troubling.  His comments about gifting illegals with a pathway, is yet another example.

32 posted on 12/13/2011 1:11:56 PM PST by DoughtyOne (Why back in '88, Conservatives backed Gore in Texas. What Reagan revolution? What laegacy?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
Well, no reason to dwell, for sure. Of course, his 'vows' were 'just that'; but had he refused, imagine that headline.

Vows are vows; and they can be as easily broken w/o an 'affair'.

Would offer that without children to impact; a family to consider - and should we count the 'silent' ways; marriage vows can be broken within a marriage sans divorce - that it is perhaps the 'wiser' at this point; to take a higher road per making judgments about Newt's decisions and perhaps his wife's/or wives as well and as the case may be.

Whatever. . .

33 posted on 12/13/2011 2:23:42 PM PST by cricket (/get the 'Occupier' out of our White House!/ Newt can make it happen. . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
What Newt really needed to do was promise not to cheat on his wife, if he was elected. He did that

And now we must vote for him, for the sake of his wife and marriage.

34 posted on 12/13/2011 2:24:53 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: sodpoodle
It would 'seem' from Trump's comments; that if Newt runs; Trump will not. After that; all bets are off. He is not sympathetic to Mitt - for sure.

Kind of a veiled threat really; taken at it's 'core'.

Other than that; certainly hope Trump does not go there. But we know from politicians in general; and just as recently; Herman Cain; that 'egos' can lead one, in the worst of ways.

35 posted on 12/13/2011 2:28:21 PM PST by cricket (/get the 'Occupier' out of our White House!/ Newt can make it happen. . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sodpoodle
I doubt those statistics. According to the CDC, which collects actual data for the 44 states that report the data:

CDC Marriage/Divorce 2009: In 2009, the marriage rate was 6.8 per 1000 population, and the divorce rate was 3.4 per 1000 population.

That means there were precisely twice as many marriages as divorces. Which could mean 50% of marriages total ended in divorce, although you can draw no conclusions about the relationship between 2009 marriages and 2009 divorces -- they aren't likely the same marriages.

My point is that if the marriage rate is twice the divorce rate, there is no chance that 50% of 1st marriages are ending in divorce, because once you throw in 2nd and 3rd marriages, your total divorce rate would be way above 50%, and the statistics set 50% as the upper limit.

A more interesting statistic might be the average number of years a marriage lasts. Another is the number of people who never get divorced (people who divorce once are more likely to divorce again, and skew the total number of divorces).

I wouldn't be surprised if the total divorce rate could hit 50%, since a person who had little fidelity to marraige could easily marry and divorce multiple times. But the statistics are tricky. For example, Gingrich is on his 3rd marriage. So HIS personal statistics is that 66% of his marriages end in divorce. If you pair him with just one faithful couple, their average is 50%. But if he divorced his current wife and didn't re-marry, you'd need two more couples to join your group in order to have a 50% success rate.

36 posted on 12/13/2011 2:36:40 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

In 2009, the marriage rate was 6.8 per 1000 population, and the divorce rate was 3.4 per 1000 population.

Math much?

That’s exactly 50%


37 posted on 12/13/2011 2:41:20 PM PST by sodpoodle ( Gingrich - flying solo - without congressional baggage!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: sodpoodle

Yes, that’s why I said that could mean that 50% of marriages end in divorce. English much?

My point is that the statistics you cited claimed that 50% of 1st marriages ended in divorce, while more than 50% of the 2nd and even more 3rd marriages did.

If the total divorces is 50%, you can’t have 50% of 1st marraiges and more than 50% of 2nd and 3rd marriages ending in divorce.

And since every 2nd and 3rd divorce is preceded by a 1st divorce, it seems clear that more than half of first marriages survive, and it’s the divorced people that drive up the total statistics, people who marry 3 times or more (although each time the actually re-marry, they do help the statistics).

Here is how the statistics play out, looking at a single individual:

1st marriage - 0% divorce rate
1st divorce - 100% divorce rate
2nd marriage - 50% divorce rate
2nd divorce - 100% divorce rate
3rd marriage - 66% divorce rate
3rd divorce - 100% divorce rate
4th marriage - 75% divorce rate
4th divorce - 100% divorce rate.

Note that each new divorce drives the rate up to 100% for that individual, and each new marriage only partly recovers the rate.

One person who divorces 4 times requires 4 others who never divorce in order to have a 50% divorce rate. And if that was the case, the “1st-marriage” divorce rate would be 20%, while in my extreme example the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th marriage divorce rates would all be 100%. If the guy got married again, we’d need 3 other couples who never divorced, and the 1st-marriage divorce rate in the group would be 25% (oddly, the 2nd and 3rd and 4th marriage rate would still be 100%, and the 5th marriage rate would be 0%).

Since I have found no statistics that show a 50% 1st-marriage divorce rate, and reams of information that even the “50% of all marriages end in divorce” is a misreading of statistics, I do not believe it is possible that 50% of FIRST MARRIAGES could end in divorce.


38 posted on 12/13/2011 2:54:12 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: cricket

I believe I understand where you are coming from. While I do understand some of the premises you touched on, at the end of the day I am left thinking that there comes a certain point in the quest for defense, that taking anything from the past into account becomes an infraction of sorts, or is otherwise forbidden.

Don’t hold infidelity against him. Why King David did that.

Don’t hold infidelity against him, because there are many ways to be unfaithful.

Don’t worry about his prior statements on global warming, a lot of people did that.

Don’t worry about his statements on illegal aliens. He’s not the only one making those either.

At some point I have to ask, is there anything at all we can hold a candidate accountable for?

I’m sure you didn’t mean this, but it seems that’s very close to where you are headed with Newt. That can’t be right.

Why vote for Newt vs Obama, if we can’t hold people accountable? If our rules for our guy are so broad so as to prevent holding him accountable for anything, how can we justify holding anyone accountable?

At the end of the day, either things are wrong or they are right. At the end of the day, either there are grounds for measuring who is good and who is not, or everyone is good and nobody is bad.


39 posted on 12/13/2011 2:59:44 PM PST by DoughtyOne (Why back in '88, Conservatives backed Gore in Texas. What Reagan revolution? What laegacy?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

HEY! ;^)


40 posted on 12/13/2011 3:01:54 PM PST by DoughtyOne (Why back in '88, Conservatives backed Gore in Texas. What Reagan revolution? What laegacy?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

I have no dispute with your well-reasoned arguments in Post 32, and I even share some of your concerns. My reaction was to your earlier, more flippant reference to Gingrich’s past marital problems, which reflected more personal venom than principled argument. While I don’t think Newt Gingrich is the best candidate we could hope for, he is certainly no Marxist and I would enthusiastically support him against Obama.


41 posted on 12/13/2011 5:25:27 PM PST by Always A Marine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Always A Marine
I have no dispute with your well-reasoned arguments in Post 32, and I even share some of your concerns.  Thank you for this reaction.  I appreciate it.

My reaction was to your earlier, more flippant reference to Gingrich’s past marital problems, which reflected more personal venom than principled argument.  I believe what you were witnessing, was my delayed expression of impatience with the premise this guy is trustworthy because he stated he would sign a pledge.  It bothered me that Newt thought he could get a pass for his actions, if only he made one more pledge.

While I don’t think Newt Gingrich is the best candidate we could hope for, he is certainly no Marxist and I would enthusiastically support him against Obama.  While I don't necessarily view this reasoning to be unustified, it does none the less trouble me.  Is he a Marxist?  No.  Is he as bad as Obama?  No.  Would he do the damage to our nation that Obama would?  No.  Could he none the less do considerable damage to our nation?  Quite possibly so...  I'll give you what I think to be a serious example.

In 2000, the illegal immigrant population was thought to be around 8 million people.  In early 2001, an adjustment was made, and the official figure was pegged at around 9 million.  This nine million people had entered the nation since around 1990, since the 1986 immigration reform was implemented over a few years, widing up roughly around mid to late 1989 to 2000.

By 2000 George Bush was telling folks he wanted to give these folks a pathway to citizenship, and even using the term Amnesty.  This telegraphed to foreign nationals, that if they could only get into the United States, they too could be a part of any amnesty.  After Bush was elected, we saw some of the largest flows of illegal immigration we've ever seen.

One nine month capture rate for only one sector along our souther border, totaled over 900,000 people.  Traditional capture rates of between 10 and 20% of total crossers, were estimated by border patrol agents.  Capture rates for one year looking like 1.2 million it was only natural to think the actually crossings must have been positively massive.

Time magazine estimated 3.5 million illegal aliens were crossing the border per year.   I don't try to claim that number.  None the less, if even 1.5 million were crossing per year (and I do think that is conservative), that's 15 million new illegals after one decade.  Added to the 9 million here in 2000, we're talking about something in the neighborhood of 25 million illegals here by 2010.  And if the actual flow was more like 2.5 million, we're looking at around 35 million illegal immigrants in country, and that's not even talking about the births to 25 to 35 million illegals.

If Newt does follow through with granting these people a pathway to citizenship, and then grants and additional flow of two million per year more legal crossers as part of his fix, we're looking at massive numbers of new citizens within a decade or two.  Allowing the traditional chain immigration to take place, that sees a number of family members be able to apply and enter the U.S. to join their family members already here, could more or less swamp our nation in short order.

What happens if 25 million illegals are naturalized, and their dads, moms, grandparents, uncles, aunts, brothers, sisters and their families are allowed in?  25 million suddenly become 100 to 125 million within 20 years.  If that figure is more like 35 million to start with and each person brings over five family members, we're talking about somewhere in the neighborhood of 150 to 200 million people naturalized in just twenty years.  Mexico, Honduras, Guatamala, the list goes on.  And if as I said, they increase legal border crossings via green card, in ten years that's 20 million more on top of that, and 40 million more in 20 years.

Newt has stated he wants to see the long term illegal immigrant given a route to naturalization and citizenship.

Do you begin to see why I don't see him as a great alternative to Obama?  That's just one issue.  He has shown that he doesn't grasp the global warming issue either.  While he says he gets it now, he has still been making some comments that infer he thinks some sort of green-house fix must combine the economy and big business.  He's still out there in la la land on the subject.  This troubles me considerably.

What happens if Newt gets it wrong on five major issues over the next four years?  Doesn't that result in a very negative future for our nation anyway?

I do not trust this guy.  He truly thinks he's a Conservative.  I don't doubt that.  I'm still not buying that he is.



42 posted on 12/13/2011 7:06:01 PM PST by DoughtyOne (Why back in '88, Conservatives backed Gore in Texas. What Reagan revolution? What laegacy?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: RoosterRedux

Really?


43 posted on 12/13/2011 10:17:06 PM PST by fightinJAG (So many seem to have lost their sense of smell . . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: fightinJAG

Big disappointment, eh? I was hoping for a Cain endorsement.


44 posted on 12/14/2011 6:46:44 AM PST by RoosterRedux (George Washington: ' Victory or Death')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson